Information Dependencies

8/3/2019 Information Dependencies

1/16

Information dependencies withinproduct architecture: prospects

of complexity reductionA.H.M. Shamsuzzoha and Petri T. Helo

Department of Production, University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to help organizational managers to keep track of theinformation management needed not only for product design and development but also to trackbetween different organizational levels.

Design/methodology/approach The research objectives are achieved through implementing the

concept in a case company, where various measures of information management are taken intoconsideration. This empirical study is conducted with a view to formulating and validating theinformation flow among product development (PD) participants.

Findings The strategic management of information exchange transforms the nature of competitionthrough reducing complexities in product design and bringing flexibility into the production process.This achievement could orientate firms towards rapid and continuous growth of their PD strategies,which are essential for survival in a global business environment.

Research limitations/implications This research was conducted through a single case studyapproach, which limits its scope for generalizing the concept. It would be more authentic if theapproach was validated over multiple case studies.

Practical implications Managing the information flow among PD participants has beenconsidered to be an important issue in todays competitive business environment. It helps to formulatethe design architecture, both at the product and organizational level.

Originality/value The strategic management of information exchange transforms the structure ofproduct architecture, which helps to reduce the complexities in product design and bring flexibilityinto the production process. The presented approach shows the intrinsic relationships between firmsresources and customers requirements, which could help product developers to improve theirproduction flexibility, overcome bottlenecks and achieve product customization.

Keywords Product development, Product design, Information management

Paper type Case study

1. Introduction1.1 Overview of the product development processThe product development (PD) process is a collaborative network designed to driveincreased productivity. Owing to increasing complexity the PD process entails areconfiguration process, new product architectures and powerful information exchangetools to connect its network team. These strategic visions might play larger roles infocusing on product innovation without requiring additional capacity and capabilitiesfrom manufacturers. Manufacturers need a distributed information network along withup-to-date product and process architecture throughout a products lifecycle to meettodays manufacturing and PD challenges and anticipating those of tomorrow.

Manufacturing firms today are facing the challenge of a changing businessenvironment, where customization is required to manage efficiently in terms of business

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/1741-038X.htm

JMTM22,3

314

Received February 2010Revised July 2010Accepted September 2010

Journal of Manufacturing Technology

Management

Vol. 22 No. 3, 2011

pp. 314-329

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

1741-038X

DOI 10.1108/17410381111112693


2/16


3/16

Error-free information modeling reduces PD lead-time and complexity, which positivelyaffects the firms revenue earnings.

1.3 Influence of architecture on the PD processIn the PD process, the design architecture plays a crucial role in terms of productivity,variety management and developmental lead-time. This product architecture canbe defined as the scheme by which the function of a product is allocated to physicalcomponents (Ulrich, 1995). It is typically embedded in the communication patternamong PD processes such as design, manufacturing and supply chain networks.The architecture influences product performance and quality, PD management throughvariety, changes, component standardization and operational processes. It is consideredas a structured approach that integrates design interfaces onto communication patternsfor PD processes (Sosa et al., 2004).

Based on operational strategies, product architecture can be divided into two types,namely, modular and integral architecture (Ulrich, 1995). As Ulrich (1995, p. 422) states:

[. . .

] modular architecture includes a one-to-one mapping from functional elements to physicalcomponents of the product, and specifies de-coupled interfaces between components. Anintegral architecture includes a complex (non one-to-one) mapping from functional elementsto physical components and/or coupled interfaces between components.

Modular product architecture offers higher process flexibility than integral architectureand acts as the base requirement for creating product variants through productplatforms. On the other hand, integral product architecture offers higher design integrityand standardization between components and their functionalities.

The selection of product architecture is practically related to the innovation processof a firm and is considered as an important decision-making process for organizationalmanagers. It initiates the customization mechanism from both the sales and engineering

perspectives (Du et al., 2001). Fixson (2005) has developed a multi-dimensional frameworkthat enables comprehensive assessments of product architecture before implementing thePD process. This framework develops existing PD characteristics such as productplatforms, product modularity and component commonality. The main objective of thisassessment is to observe the impact of productarchitecture decisions between the extremesof modular and integral architecture on product, process and supply chain networks.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the research scopeand objectives, while Section 3 presents a literature review on the generic theme ofinformation exchange and tools for information management, the perspective ofmodularity and product platform. Section 4 presents the empirical research performedon a case company. The fundamental results from the case example are also illustratedin Section 4. The overall outcomes and lessons learnt from this research are discussed

and concluded in Section 5.

2. Research scope and objectivesThe focus of this research is to integrate the essential features of information flow withthe PD process. This perspective includes specific research challenges and problems,which have been identified as the research outcomes.

The aim of the research is to provide new insight into and enhance knowledge in thearea of PD as part of a better design approach through managing information flow.

JMTM22,3

316


4/16

Valuable information flow, basic configuration principle and different designapproaches are presented in this research with a view to optimizing product variantsfor greater customer satisfaction. Therefore, this research has three objectives:

(1) to investigate design architecture and display the component dependencies orinformation flows in a matrix format;

(2) to examine the formation of suitable clusters/modules through clusteringoperation with a view to developing modular product architecture; and

(3) to identify the dependencies and clusters between internal resources(components) and external offerings/solutions (customer requirements) inorder to investigate the critical components.

3. Literature review3.1 Theories of information exchange and strategic perspectiveGlobal competition and a distributed business environment make PD processes muchmore complex than ever. This complexity does not arise simply from the technical pointof view, but also from the managerial point of view. Technical complexity could bemanaged through decomposing the designing process into more manageable smallerengineering tasks and assigning these tasks to individuals or teams (Kusiak and Park,1990; Steward, 1991). On the other hand, managerial complexity, which is evolved fromthe information gap between organizations and different engineering disciplines, can bemanaged through project management tools, which interface the dependencies betweendesign tasks and organizations departments (Yassine et al., 1999).

The design complexities are normatively suppressed by proper execution of a designplan and structuring various information dependencies. Information dependencies aremodeled according to the design plan, which shows the order of execution in whichdesign tasks are performed. This planned execution order reduces the product design risk

and magnitude of iteration between design tasks, which in turn explores opportunities forreducing the overall project cycle time. The number of design iterations, which causeslengthy cycle time, occurs due to the information gap between design elements. Thedevelopment of a proper information modeling approach bridges the gap between designprocesses. The exchange of design information could be fragmented and released on atimely basis during the development processes (Yassine et al., 2008).

Information processing among the design elements eases the decision-makingprocess, as the information is considered as input, while the decisions arereleased as output. Each design activity collects the required information as input,which is analyzed internally for specific decision making before being released as output(Zhu, 2002). Before exchanging information between design elements, it is worthwhilestudying how information is created, communicated and implemented during the

development process, and what might be the possible impacts on design activities.Through understanding the possible impact and risk of information, better decisionscould be made to develop quality products with higher efficiency.

3.2 Information management tools and approachesThere are various tools or methodologies available to manage design processinformation. Lawler (1976) introduced the directed graph approach, which ismost popular for presenting the precedence relationships among design tasks.

Informationdependencies

317


5/16

In this approach, nodes present different tasks, and their dependencies are displayedthrough directed lines connecting those nodes. Ross (1977) presented graph-basedtechniques known as structured analysis and design technique (SADT), where designinformation is captured through intra-task complexity. The dependencies of various

tasks are also presented by using a matrix-based approach known as design structurematrix (DSM), introduced by Steward (1981, 1991). This matrix-based informationexchange approach uses a binary form of dependency representation and isimplemented within single domain.

The DSM representation has been used and proven by many researchers(Eppinger et al., 1990; Steward, 1991; Kusiak and Wang, 1993), and can be implementedsuccessfully for project management, concurrent engineering CE, etc. The dependencyrepresentation through matrix-based approach provides a concise and systematicmapping of design tasks, which is clear and easy to read whatever the sizes are. Thistool has been successfully implemented in different fields of research such as designengineering (Pektas and Pultar, 2006; Shamsuzzoha, 2008, 2009; Tang et al., 2009),managing design knowledge (Tang et al., 2010), software engineering (Helo et al., 2010),project management (Danilovic and Browning, 2007), etc. An extension of the DSM toolnamed domain mapping matrix (DMM) is also widely used for representing thedependency pattern between two domains (Danilovic and Borjesson, 2001; Danilovic andBrowning, 2007).

Spinner (1989) presented the project evaluation and review technique (PERT) methodthat is a digraph representation of a project information flow, where the tasks or nodesare arranged along a time line. In the PERT method, three probabilistic times, namelyoptimistic, pessimistic and most likely, are presented in order to reflect the uncertainty oftask duration. Another technique critical path method, which is a variation of the PERTmethod, applies deterministic task duration with minimal uncertainty in the projectcompletion time.

The US Air Force developed the integration definition (IDEF) method, whichoriginated from SADT (do we know what this is) to perform information modelingactivities in support of computer-integrated manufacturing and CE (Mayer et al., 1992).IDEF3 is a method that provides a mechanism for collecting and documenting processes(Belhe and Kusiak, 1995). IDEF3 descriptions can determine the impact of anorganizations information resources on the major operation scenarios of an enterprise.It captures all temporal information, including precedence and casualty relationshipsassociated with enterprise processes. IDEF3 builds structured descriptions, whichcapture information about what a system actually does, or will do, and provides anorganizations system views.

3.3 Complexity reduction: perspectives of modularity and product platform

Generic business processes require suitable PD strategies in order to be flexibleand more productive. The trend towards creating a greater number of product varietiesinfluences firms to initiate accurate and appropriate product design architecture inorder to stay competitive with higher customer satisfaction (Pine, 1993). In such asituation developing a module-based production system offers valuable insight forany firm. In modularity, modules are usually formed based on the functionalities andinterdependencies of the components. These interdependencies are acted on as flowsof information, which can be in the form of functionality, material, energy, force, etc.

JMTM22,3

318


6/16

These information dependencies need to be managed carefully in order to reduce thenumber of feedback loops and for the formation of the optimum number of modulesrequired for developing modular products.

In modularity, modules can be mixed and matched to create new variants of a

product, which is the pre-requisite for gaining mass customization in the business areas(Fixson, 2007). Mikkola and Gassmann (2003) develop the modularization functiondepending on the number of components and the degree of coupling between modules.Modular design describes the best configuration of components or parts and as akey process feature it facilitates continuous improvement (Evans, 1963, 1970; Uptonand McAfee, 2000). Modular product architecture reduces process complexity andmanufacturing inventory, increases economies of scale and risk pooling, which in turnreduces the cost of production (Fixson, 2006). It increases the processing flexibilities ofmachines and offers agility in the manufacturing system through integrating bothproduct and process (Watanabe and Ane, 2004).

Modular PD offers greater product variation and shorter developmental lead timesthrough implementing platform-based PD (Simpson, 2004). The main benefit from theproduct platform is that variants of a product can be derived either by adding, removingor substituting one or more modules to the platform, or by scaling the platform in one ormore dimensions into specific market segments (Martin and Ishii, 2002). This strategybrings an important competitive advantage for a firm and provides benefits of reductionin design effort and time-to-market. Robertson and Ulrich (1998) provided planning forthe development of a robust product platform architecture, which includes taking intoconsideration marketing, design and manufacturing strategies. Claesson et al. (2001)modeled product platforms using configurable components from which designers couldchoose appropriate manufacturing and design strategies.

4. Empirical research

This section describes the empirical part of the paper, which was carried out in acase company and was formulated to justify the study and to present how it couldbe implemented for the benefit of the case company. The study method, deploymentexamples, experiences and research outcomes are discussed in the followingsub-sections.

4.1 Research methodologyTo perform this research, a case study approach was employed to investigate informationflows or dependencies within component levels of the PD process. The study followed themethodology shown in Figure 1. As shown in Figure 1, the research started by reviewingthe literature in information processing, modularity and product platforms. Based on theliterature, this empirical study involves information dependencies among the component

levels and their consequences, the possible benefits of modular architecture, and theclustering effects on customers requirements with product architecture. The requireddata were collected by interviewing, from weekly/bi-weekly meetings of managers,designers, engineers, from active participation in the companys daily assembly activities,and from the companys standard register.

The goal of the technical meetings was to discuss and decide on the strategicinitiatives which the business unit should be directed towards from the technologypoint of view. The very first review meeting was mostly used to brief the status


319


7/16

of the production floor, and problems, challenges and trends in the competitiveenvironment. The generic target of the technology review meetings was muchmore ambitious: the discussions between designers and managers could lead tofruitful innovative decisions. The benefits from these reviewmeetings were observed to beworthwhile in revealing various problems and weaknesses to the case company.Therefore, specific improvements in engine architecture and the necessity of interfacebetween customers needs and design architecture were suggested in order to cope with

existing problems or bottlenecks.The case study research was formulated with a view to justifying the researchscope and objectives and to illustrate how these could be implemented for the benefitof the case company. The research was justified through intrinsic investigationand implementation of the research issues, namely, information perspectives, modulardesign strategies and clustering between the companys offerings/solutions with theexisting component architectures applicable for developing customer-specific product.Various research perspectives were tested and verified through real data taken from thecase company. Owing to the issue of confidentiality, mostly sample data or data setswere implemented for this study purpose. In this study, we used two tools, namely:

(1) PSM32; and

(2) Multiplan Professional

for the DSM and DMM, respectively.4.1.1 The case company. The case study was carried out in Company A, Finland, in

order to implement the theoretical concept of information flow on the component leveland to achieve the modular design strategy in practice. Company A is a global leader incomplete lifecycle power solutions for the marine and energy markets. By emphasizingtechnological innovation and total efficiency, Company A maximizes the environmentaland economic performance of the vessels and power plants of its customers.

Figure 1.Research methodology

Literature review on information flow in component level,

modularity and product platform

Structured interview with designers, engineers, managers and workers

Data collection (active participation and fromcase companys register)

Weekly or bi-weekly meetings with managers, designers and engineers

Formation of modules for modular design (using DSM tool)

Clustering between customer offerings/solutions and product

architecture (using DMM tool)

JMTM22,3

320


8/16

In 2009, the companys net sales totaled e5.3 billion, with 19,000 employees. Thecompany has operations in 160 locations in 70 countries around the world.

The main product of case Company A is diesel engines used in the powerplant business for generating electrical energy, and in the ship industry for producing

electrical energy and power for driving the propeller. The capacities of the differentdiesel engines are from 2,880 to 9,000 kW, with six to 18 cylinder V or line enginesaccording to customers requirements. The engines have a cylinder bore of 320 mm,piston stroke 400 mm and speed of 720-750 rpm. Most of the engines are customized anddelivered according to specific customer orders.

4.2 Capturing and analyzing component interactions/dependencies: modular perspectiveTo fulfill the first two research objectives, we collected data for high-level componentarchitecture from case Company A, and the dependencies of the components with eachother are shown in Figure 2. From Figure 2, we could visualize the complex networkrepresentation of the components/modules, which is quite difficult to capture, especially

when the component architectures are displayed in the lower level. From this networkrepresentation it is also difficult to look for specific dependencies required forimprovements or to find bottlenecks in the design architecture. Keeping this limitation inmind, we implemented matrix-based methodology with the DSM tool, which is relativelysimple to use and visualize the dependency pattern or information flow within theproduct architecture. The DSM tool can be outlined as a tool or methodology to displaycompact, matrix representation of design architecture or a project network (Steward,1981; Browning, 2001).

Figure 2.Network representation

of the case companyscomponent architecture

Cylinder liner

Thermostat valve

Air vent systemPiston ring

set

Cylinder head

Cam shaft

Connecting rod

Crank shaft

Exhaust system

Lubricating oil system

Cooling water system

UNIC

Valve tappet

Sump

Exhaust gas and

charge air systemStarting air system

Injection pump

Insulation box

main parts

Flywheel

Automation system

Charge air system

Conventional/

common rail

Main bearing

Turbocharger

Control oil pump

Fuel pipe with damper

Oil nozzle

Lube oil filter

Water pump

Sensors

Control system

Booster

Governor

Over speed trip module

Solenoid valve

Thermometer

Connecting box

Common base plate

Leak fuel system

Starter motor

Thrust bearing

Big end bearing

Cylinder head equipment

Shutdown mechanism

Engine block

Piston

Exhaust system

Inlet gas valves

Gear train

Fuel pump

Water pipes

Fuel pipes

Air block

Charge air cooler

TappetAccumulator

Air pipesCharge air cooler

Pulsation damper

Exhaust gas valves

Lubricating oil module

Sample components interactionsSource: Company As standard register

Fuel injection

Dependencies of

components/modules


321


9/16

The DSM is a square matrix with identical rows and columns, where the rows andcolumns are named and ordered identically. All the components of a product architectureare assigned along rows and corresponding columns by using DSM. The dependencies ofthe components with each others are represented by placing marks (such as 0, 1, X, etc.)

within the matrix. The marks in a single row represent all thecomponents whose output isrequired to perform the fabrication/assembly of the component corresponding to thatrow. In a similar fashion, reading down a specific column reveals which componentreceives information/dependency from the component corresponding to that column.Marks above the diagonal depict information fed back to earlier listed components(i.e. feedback mark) and indicate that an upstream task is dependent on a downstreamcomponent.

In order to display the interdependencies among components leveling thematrix format, we have implemented a component-based DSM tool PSM32from the company Problematic, the USA (www.problematics.com/download.asp). Thistool can accommodate a large number of design elements and their interdependenciesin a convenient way. It can be used quite easily to display the iterations or feedbackloops within the design architecture. It manages the design architecture throughclustering, which results in optimum clusters or modules that are required for asmoother assembly process. These clusters provide insights into how to managecomplex architecture through increasing interactions within modules and reducinginteractions between modules. Figure 3 shows the matrix representation of the casecompanys engine component architecture, which is presented early in a network formatin Figure 2.

From Figure 3, we could observe 30 components along the rows and correspondingcolumns, where the information flows or dependencies on each other are presentedby the mark 1. For instance, the component Inlet gas valves (number 15) depends onthe components Camshaft (number 11) and Cylinder head equipment (number 17),

respectively, in order to be fabricated or assembled. In order to reduce the feedbackloops or iteration numbers/times, we need to perform the clustering operation within thecomponent architecture in Figure 3. In clustering, the rows and corresponding columnsare rearranged in such a way that the upper diagonal marks are brought back as closeto the diagonal line as possible. This results in the formation of five modules, as shownin Figure 4. These modules contribute to the modular design architecture, which isan essential strategy for profitable business in terms of reduced lead-time, higherproductivity, more design flexibility and lower manufacturing/assembly cost.

From this dependency or information flow pattern among the engine components it iscomparatively easy to look for design improvement or finding bottlenecks within thedesign architecture. The way of module formation guides the case companys designersin terms of developing common or standard components and/or initiating the adoption

of modularization decisions as a whole. The developed modules also enhance thepossibility of adopting platform-based PD from which variants of engine types can beproduced to fulfill most of the potential customers needs. From this study it is noticedthat the case companys engine architecture is not fully, but only partly, modular, whichcan be improved further based on the outcomes of this research. It is also noticed that thecompanys management could consider modular product platform strategies, fromwhich it can benefit in several ways such as technology changeover, option to expandsales by adding a new feature, etc.

JMTM22,3

322


10/16

4.3 Capturing and analyzing interactions/dependencies between component architectureand solutionsThe third and final objective is investigated and fulfilled through implementing theDMM tool, which is used to bring the relationships between component architecture andsolutions for customer in a compact way, as shown in Figure 5. DMM is a rectangulartwo-dimensional matrix tool used to represent and analyze dependencies andrelationships between two different domains (Danilovic and Borjesson, 2001). Thistool provides a clear representation of complex systems and visualizes the interactionsacross two different domains, where the rows represent the nodes of one domain and thecolumns represent the nodes of another domain. The DMM tool Multiplan Professional

from the company RedTeam, Sweden (www.redteam.se/products.asp) is used to map thedependency pattern or information flow between the companys 218 higher level enginecomponents and 70 solutions for customer orders.

The rows in Figure 5 shows the potential solutions/offerings, while thecolumns display part of the component list. The interactions/dependencies within thetwo domains are also displayed with mark 3, which represents the highest strength ofdependency. There could be a low dependency mark 1 and medium dependency levelmark 2 as well. In order to find the most important or critical components that satisfy

Figure 3.DSM representation of the

case companyscomponent architecture

(un-clustered)

1

Component versus

component (DSM)

Crankshaft

Mainbearing

Thrustbearing

Lubricatingoilsystem

Fly-wheel

Cylinderliner

Piston

Pistonringset

Connectingrod

Big-end

bearings

Camshaft

Cooling

watersystem

Valvetappet

Cylinderhead

Inletgas

valves

Exhaust

gasvalves

Cylinderheadequipment

UNIC

Starting

airsystem

Leakfue

lsystem

Engineb

lock

Fuelinje

ctionsystem

Overspeedtripdevice

Starterm

otor

Waterpipes

Pulsationdamper

Fuelpum

p

Spashguard

Injection

pump

Turbochargingsystem

Crankshaft 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Main bearing 2 1

Thrust bearing 3 1

Lubricating oil system 4 1

Fly-wheel 5 1

Cylinder liner 6 1 1 1

Piston 7 1

Piston ring set 8 1 1

Connecting rod 9 1 1

Big-end bearings 10 1

Camshaft 11 1 1 1

Cooling water system 12 1 1 1

Valve tappet 13 1 1

Cylinder head 14 1 1 1 1Inlet gas valves 15 1

Exhaust gas valves 16 1

1

1

Cylinder head equipment 17 1 1 1

UNIC 18

19

Leak fuel system 20 1

Engine block 21 1 1 1 1 1

Fuel injection system 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Overspeed trip device 23

Starter motor 24 1

Water pipes 25 1

Pulsation damper 26

Fuel pump 27 1

Splash guard 28

Injection pump 29

Turbocharging system 30

Starting air system 1 indicates that Inlet gas

valves have a dependency

over camshaft

Component

dependency by

DSM tool


323


11/16

Figure 4.Proposal for moduleswith optimal interaction(clustered)

Cran

kshaft

Mainbearing

Thru

stbearing

Fly-wheel

UNI

C

Startingairsystem

Overspeedtripdevice

Pulsationdamper

Spla

shguard

Injectionpump

Turb

ochargingsystem

Cylinderliner

Piston

Pistonringset

Connectingrod

Cam

shaft

Coolingwatersystem

Cylinderhead

Inletgasvalves

Exhaustgasvalves

Cylinderheadequipme

Engineblock

Waterpipes

Big-

endbearings

Startermotor

Lubricatingoilsystem

Valv

etappet

Leakfuelsystem

Fuelinjectionsystem

Fuelpump

1 2 3 5 18 19 23 26 28 29 30 6 7 8 9 11 12 14 15 16 17 21 25 10 24 4 13 20 22 27

Crankshaft 1 1 1 1 1

Main bearing 2 1 2

Thrust bearing 3 1 3

Fly-wheel 5 1 5

UNIC 18 18

Starting air system 19 19

Overspeed trip device 23 23

Pulsation damper 26 26

Splash guard 28 28

Injection pump 29 29

Turbocharging system 30 30

Cylinder liner 6 6 1 1 1

Piston 7 7 1 1

Piston ring set 8 1 1 8

Connecting rod 9 1 1 9

Camshaft 11 11 1 1 1

Cooling water system 12 1 12 1 1

Cylinder head 14 1 14 1 1Inlet gas valves 15 1 15 1

Exhaust gas valves 16 1 16 1

Cylinder head equipment 17 1 1 1 17

Engine block 21 1 1 11 21

Water pipes 25 1 25

Big-end bearings 10 1 10

Starter motor 24 1 24

Lubricating oil system 4 1 4

Valve tappet 13 13 1

Leak fuel system 20 20 1

Fuel injection system 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 1

Fuel pump 27 1 27

Optimal

crankshaft

module

Optimal

driving unit

module

Engine block

module

F1ue system

module

Figure 5.Screen shot of casecompanys enginedependency matrixbetween customerspreferences andcomponents (un-clustered)

Application

Engine installation (only marine engines)

Cylinger configuration

Engine speed mode

Design stage

Cylinder output( kW/cyl.)

Classification

Engine area classification(only if pump d rive)

Engine mounting

Installation

Emission optmization

PTO shaft

PTO shaft output (kW)

Frequency

Voltage for electric motors (V)

Voltage for solenoids (VDC)

Speed (rpm)

Rotation direction

Fuel

Fuel system

Fuel feed pump

Stand-by connection

Fuel system with return pipe

common rail

Oil sump

Sump depth

Oil level (oil dipstick)

Separator oil pipes with valves

Stand-by connection

Engineblock

Drillingofengineblockforflexiblemountedengine

Drillingofengineblock

Crankshaft

Mainbearing

Thrustbearing

PTO-shaftequipments

Fly-wheel

Fittinngscrewsforflywheel

Cylinderliner

Cylinderlinerfasterningequipment

Piston

Pistonringset

Connectingrodupperpart

Connectingrodlowerpart

Shim

Big-endbearingupperhalf

Big-endbearinglowerhalf

Camshaft

Bearingforca

haft

Valvetappet

Intermediategear

Bearingsforgearwheels

Cylinderhead

Inletgasvalves

Exhaustgasvalves

Cylinderheadequipment

Coverforindicatorvalve

Regulatingshaft

Shut-downmechanism

Controllinkrod

Crankcasevalve

Covers

Domain mapping matrix

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3 3

3

3

3 3 3 3

3

3

333

3

3 3

3333333

Solutions

or offerings

Componentslist

Interactions between

components and solutions

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 3425

Bearingcoverfo

mshaft

JMTM22,3

324


12/16

most of the solutions for customer demands, we have to cluster the contents in Figure 5by rearranging the rows and columns according to the level of dependencies betweensolutions and components. As a result of clustering two clusters were formed, oneof which is partlyshown in Figure 6. From Figure 6, we could look for the most important

or valuable components needing special care during the design and maintenance phase.This clustering principle opens up the decision-making process with respect to designbottlenecks and possible improvements.

The visualization and analysis of the two domains by DMM methodology formulatethe case companys overall planning process. The companys designers and managerswould benefit from this analysis from various perspectives, such as finding criticalcomponents, balancing the component costs with solutions for the customer, the toolingor resource requirements for further improvements of the existing design architecture,etc. The overall dependencies or information flows between the component level andcustomer demand or desire are required to track the developmental work within caseCompany A. The lessons learnt from this case example could also be implemented in asimilar way for any industrial establishments in the future.

5. Discussion and conclusionsIn this research, we have focused mainly on how information flow in the businessenvironment iterates within PD processes in order to achieve customized product. Tocope with todays trends towards customization or individualization, information flow ispresented as a dynamic way to build relationships among designers, engineers andcustomers. From this research study, we have noticed that along with the information

Figure 6.Screen shot of case

companys enginedependency matrixbetween customers

preferences andcomponents (clustered)

Direction of exhaust gas outlet

Wastegate arrangement

Classification

Turbocharger

Turbocharger type

Design stage

Automation level

Application

TC location

Cylinder configuration

Common rail

Fuel

Oil sump

Stand-by connectionStand-by connection (LT-water)

Emission optimization

Rotation direction

Fuel feed pump

Fuel system with return pipe

Stand-by connection (HT-water)

Engine driven pump (LT-water)

Oversize LT-water pump-flow rate

Oversize LT-water pump

Air inlet to TC

FAKS sensors

Aircooler

Additional external lube oil cooler

Cylinder liner temp. sensors

49

3 42156162 170 39119118 76 78 84 86 100 122123127153165166128193197144146148152 41116 97141139158

48

7

41

42

5

54

1

43

3

24

19

25

2935

11

18

21

23

32

34

39

38

44

56

47

30

55

DMM Output

Drillingofengineblock

Equipmentforpumpcovercon

nections

ExhaustsystemafterTC

Insulationforexhaustoutletca

sing

Vibrationmesurementspoints

Pumpcover

EquipmentifwithoutLTwaterpump

EquipmentforLTwaterpump

Oilpipeforpressureregulatingvalve

Lub.oilpipesbetweenaut.filterandcent.f

ilter

Lubricatingoilmodule

Fasteningequipmentforlub.oi

lmodule

Lubeoiloutlet(fromoilsump)

HT-waterpipeformTC-bracke

ttopumpcover

HT-waterpipeformstandbypump

Drainpipeformairreceiver

Turbochargerbracket

Turbochargerfasteningequipm

ent

HT-waterpipefromaircooler

Equipmentforconnectingbox

Coverfoxhotboxendcover

Waterpipes

Chargeaircooler

Chargeairsystem

Coversforairduct

Waterconncetions,pumpcover-TCbracket

WaterpumpLT

Lub.oilpipefromel.drivenpump

BracketforLT-pipeandlub.oilpipe

LT-waterpipes

InsulationbetweenTCandinsulationbox

Waterpipeformpunpcoverto

lub.oilcooler

Cluster of solutions

versus components

3

3 3 3 3 3 3

3

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

333333

3

33333333

3

3 3

3

3

33

3

33

3

333

3

3 3

3

3 333

3333

3

3 3

33

3 3 3 3

3 3 3

3 3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

33

333


325


13/16

perspective, firms are also lagging behind with appropriate product design anddevelopment measures, which are the base requirements for enhancing productivityand customer satisfaction. Available measures such as modularity, product platform,product variants, etc. are widely implemented by firms, although there are limited rules

or methodologies for applying these strategies efficiently.The basic scope and objective of this research was to understand the generic

concept of information perspective among design architecture that affects thedecision-making process of a company in terms of modular design, platform-based PD,and potential solutions for customers, etc. Throughout this study the analytical issues ofproduct architecture and its consequences for PD strategies and customizations wereinvestigated. The basic concepts of module formation and its usability and benefits forpotential market growth were discussed. The modeling concept of product modularity,which is one of the basic strategies for developing customized product quickly andeconomically, was presented. This phenomenon enhances production flexibility, whichinfluences business capability at a higher level. Through the presented case example,it was fairly easy to understand the basics of modular design approach. It is believedthat organizational managers would benefit from adopting the presented approach ofmodularity with a view to scheduling their overall PD processes.

This paper also contributes to making a balance between market potential andcompanies design philosophy. It makes a tradeoff between firms external pressuressuch as product variety, customer solutions, product costs, etc. with internal capabilitiessuch as available resources, capacity constraints, production lead-time, etc. From theempirical study, we also investigated how dependencies or information flows betweencomponent architecture and solutions for valuable customers influence the casecompanys business environment. After a clustering operation, the developed clustershelp designers to identify the companys most valuable components, which need to becarefully designed and implemented within the overall engine development process.

These valuable or critical components demand special attention as they are used tosatisfy most of the customers requirements efficiently and economically.

References

Belhe, U. and Kusiak, A. (1995), Resource constrained scheduling of hierarchically structureddesign activity networks, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 42,pp. 150-8.

Browning, T.R. (2001), Applying the design structure matrix to system decomposition andintegration problems: a review and new directions, IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management, Vol. 48, pp. 292-306.

Claesson, A., Johannesson, H. and Gedell, S. (2001), Platform product development: productmodel a system structure composed of configurable components, Proceedings of 2001

ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Pittsburgh, USA, 9-12 September,ASME, New York, NY.

Danilovic, M. and Borjesson, H. (2001), Participatory dependence structure matrix approach,Proceedings of the Third Dependence Structure Matrix (DSM) International Workshop,Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA.

Danilovic, M. and Browning, T.R. (2007), Managing complex product development projects withdesign structure matrices and domain mapping matrices, International Journal of Project

Management, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 300-14.

JMTM22,3

326


14/16

Day, G.S. (1994), The capabilities of market-driven organizations, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58No. 4, pp. 37-52.

Du, X., Jiao, J. and Tseng, M.M. (2001), Architecture of product family: fundamentals andmethodology, Concurrent Engineering, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 309-25.

Eppinger, S.D., Whitney, D.E., Smith, R.P. and Gebala, D.A. (1990), Organizing the tasks incomplex design projects, Proceedings of the 1990 ASME Conference of Design Theoryand Methodology, ASME, New York, NY, pp. 39-46.

Evans, D.H. (1963), Modular design a special case in nonlinear programming, OperationsResearch, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 637-47.

Evans, D.H. (1970), A note on modular design a special case in nonlinear programming,Operations Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 562-4.

Fixson, S.K. (2005), Product architecture assessment: a tool to link product, process, and supplychain design decisions, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 23, pp. 345-69.

Fixson, S.K. (2006), A roadmap for product architecture costing, in Simpson, T.W., Siddique, Z.and Jiao, R.J. (Eds), Product Platform and Product Family Design: Methods and

Applications, Springer, New York, NY, pp. 305-33.Fixson, S.K. (2007), Modularity and commonality research: past developments and future

opportunities, Concurrent Engineering: Research and Applications, Vol. 15 No. 2,pp. 85-111.

Helo, P.T., Shamsuzzoha, AHM and Hilmola, O.P. (2010), Design structure matrix based valueanalysis of software product platforms,International Journal of Business Excellence,Vol.3No. 3, pp. 261-78.

Hubler, G.P. (1991), Organizational learning: the contributing processes and the literatures,Organizational Science, Vol. 2, pp. 88-115.

Inkpen, A.C. and Dinur, A. (1998), Knowledge management processes and international jointventures, Organization Science, Vol. 9, pp. 454-68.

Kusiak, A. and Park, K. (1990), Concurrent engineering: decomposition and scheduling of designactivities, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 28, pp. 1883-900.

Kusiak, A. and Wang, J. (1993), Efficient organizing of design activities, International Journalof Production Research, Vol. 31, pp. 753-69.

Kyriakopoulos, K. and Ruyter, K.D. (2004), Knowledge stocks and information flows in newproduct development, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 8, pp. 1469-98.

Lawler, E. (1976), Combinatorial Optimization: Networks and Matroids, Holt, Rinehart &Winston, New York, NY.

Macdonald, S. (1998), Information for Innovation: Managing Change from an InformationPerspective, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Martin, M.V. and Ishii, K. (2002), Design for variety: developing standardized and modularizedproduct platform architectures, Research in Engineering Design, Vol. 13, pp. 213-35.

Mayer, R., Painter, M. and de Witte, P. (1992), IDEF Family of Methods for Concurrent Engineering and Business Re-engineering Applications, Knowledge Based Systems,College Station, TX.

Mikkola, J.H. and Gassmann, O. (2003), Managing modularity of product architectures: towardan integrated theory, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 50 No. 2,pp. 204-18.

Moorman, C. (1995), Organizational market information processes: cultural antecedents andnew product outcomes, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 318-35.


327


15/16

Nonaka, I., and Teece, D. (2001), Managing Industrial Knowledge: Creation, Transfer andUtilization, Sage, London.

Pektas, S.T. and Pultar, M. (2006), Modeling detailed information flows in building design with

the parameter-based design structure matrix, Design Studies, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 99-122.

Piller, F.T., Moeslein, K. and Stotko, C.M. (2004), Does mass customization pay? An economic

approach to evaluate customer integration, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 15 No. 4,pp. 435-44.

Pine, B.J. (1993), Mass Customization: The New Frontier in Business Competition, HarvardBusiness School Press, Boston, MA.

Robertson, D. and Ulrich, K. (1998), Planning for product platforms, Sloan ManagementReview, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 19-31.

Ross, D. (1977), Structural analysis (SA): a language for communicating ideas,

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, Vol. SE-3, pp. 16-34.

Shamsuzzoha, AHM (2009), Restructuring design processes for better information exchange,

International Journal of Management and Enterprise Development, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 299-313.

Shamsuzzoha, AHM, Helo, P. and Kekale, T. (2008), Applying design structure matrix (DSM)

method in mass customizations, Operations and Supply Chain Management, Vol. 1 No. 1,pp. 57-71.

Simpson, T.W. (2004), Product platform design and customization: status and promise,

AI EDAM: Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis, and Manufacturing,Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 3-20.

Sosa, M.E., Eppinger, S.D. and Rowles, C.M. (2004), The misalignment of product architecture

and organizational structure in complex product development, Management Science,Vol. 50 No. 12, pp. 1674-89.

Spinner, M. (1989), Improving Project Management Skills and Techniques, Prentice-Hall,Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Steward, D.V. (1981), The design structure system: a method for managing the design ofcomplex systems, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 28, pp. 71-4.

Steward, D.V. (1991), Planning and managing the design of systems, Proceedings of PortlandInternational Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology, Portland, USA,27-31 October.

Tang, D., Zhang, G. and Dai, S. (2009), Design as integration of axiomatic design and design

structure matrix, Robotics & Computer-Integrated Manufacturing, Vol. 25 No. 30,pp. 610-19.

Tang,D., Zhu, R., Tang,J., Xu, R. andHe, R. (2010), Productdesign knowledge managementbased

on design structure matrix, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 159-66.

Tseng, M. and Piller, F. (2003), Customer centric enterprise, in Tesng, M. and Piller, F.T. (Eds),

The Customer Centric Enterprise: Advances in Mass Customization and Personalization,Springer, Berlin.

Ulrich, K. (1995), The role of product architecture in the manufacturing firm, Research Policy,Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 419-40.

Upton, D.M. and McAfee, A.P. (2000), A path-based approach to information technology

in manufacturing, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 20 Nos 3/4,pp. 354-72.

von Hippel, E. (1988), The Sources of Innovation, Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

JMTM22,3

328


16/16

Watanabe, C. and Ane, B.K. (2004), Constructing a virtuous cycle of manufacturing agility:concurrent roles of modularity in improving agility and reducing lead-time,Technovation, Vol. 24, pp. 573-83.

Yassine, A.A., Falkenburg, D. and Chelst, K. (1999), Engineering design management:

an information structure approach, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 37No. 13, pp. 2957-75.

Yassine, A.A., Sreenivas, R.S. and Zhu, J. (2008), Managing the exchange of information inproduct development, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 184, pp. 311-26.

Zhu, Z. (2002), Evaluating contingency approaches to information systems design, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 22, pp. 343-56.

Zipkin, P. (2001), The limits of mass customization, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 3,pp. 81-7.

About the authorsA.H.M. Shamsuzzoha has been working as a Researcher in the Department of Production,University of Vaasa, Finland, since April 2007. He received his PhD in Industrial Managementfrom the University of Vaasa, Finland in 2010. He received his Master of Science (MechanicalEngineering) degree from the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. Currently his researchactivities are devoted to the integration of the DSM tool in the PD process. His major researchinterest lies in the area of PD and logistics. He has published several research papers ininternational journals and conference proceedings. A.H.M. Shamsuzzoha is the correspondingauthor and can be contacted at: [email protected]

Petri T. Helo is a Research Professor in theLogistics Systems Research Group at theUniversityof Vaasa, Finland. He received his PhD in Production Economics from the University of Vaasa,Finland in 2001. He is also involved in developing logistics information systems at Wapice Ltd,as a partner. His research addresses the management of logistics processes in supply demandnetworks, which take place in electronics, machine building and food industries. His areas ofexpertise include agile manufacturing, technology management and system dynamics. He haspublished several research papers in prestigious international journals and conferenceproceedings.


329

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Information Dependencies

Documents

Transcript of Information Dependencies